Public Bill Committee

[Mr. David Amess in the Chair]
LD 05 Campaign to Protect Rural England
LD 06 Mobile Operators Association

Clause 67

Regional strategy

Daniel Rogerson: I beg to move amendment 99, in clause 67, page 50, line 13, at end insert
( ) the Secretary of State shall undertake a review of the existing regional boundaries as currently defined within 6 months of the commencement of the Act..

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 122, in clause 80, page 56, line 31, leave out its and insert the.
Amendment 123, in clause 80, page 56, line 31, at end insert or regions which it covers.
New clause 18Number of Regional Development Agencies
In section 25 of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 for subsection (2) substitute
(2) The alterations that may be made by an order under this section include alterations that result in a reduction or increase in the number of regions in that Schedule, where the order has been made following a request from one or more local authorities under section [Regional Development Agency boundaries] of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009..
New clause 19Regional Development Agency boundaries
(1) A local authority may request a review under section 25 of the Regional Development Agencies Act of the extent of the Regional Development Agency area of which it is a part.
(2) If the Secretary of State receives a request under subsection (2), he must
(a) undertake a review, or
(b) make publicly available the reasons for refusing the request..

Daniel Rogerson: It is a pleasure to be here with you, Mr. Amess. As I walked towards Westminster this sunny morning, I was delighted to know that I would be spending it in Committee discussing the Bill, and I am sure that all hon. Members feel that way.
The former Secretary of State referred to getting the architecture right in introducing the Bill, and many people in the real world will feel that we have not got it right. A regular gripe when considering the south-west regional spatial strategythe one with which I am most familiar, for obvious reasonsis that the region does not make sense and that attempts to come up with strategies across an area as geographically large and economically diverse as the south-west is not necessarily the way forward. The approach has been to identify sub-regional areas within that and to develop them.
It has been my view and that of many people across the south-westI am sure that the situation will be similar in other regionsthat regions that were set up back in the 1980s for various purposes, including Government purposes, might not necessarily be the right way to proceed. Therefore, regional development agencies that operate along those boundaries might not be the right way to go. The amendments tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne seek to promote a debate about whether those regions are the right way to proceed. They also seek to put in place procedures that would stimulate that discussion and enable principally local authorities, in consultation with their communities, to come up with suggestions about what the natural regions really are. We might therefore have RDAs that mirror those natural regions, as well as reflecting Government arrangements.
Since the failure of the north-east referendum to convince people that elected regional authorities are the way to gocertainly in that part of the countrywe have been in a limbo state in which RDAs and regional assemblies have muddled along, trying to persuade people that they have the authority to take important decisions for the regions that have been constructed for them. It is fair to say that that approach has been greatly criticised.
The Bill gives us the opportunity to build a new regional policy, to look at the current boundaries and decide whether they are correct, and to put in place a mechanism for opening up debate and allowing it to move forward.

Stewart Jackson: This is an extremely important clause because it encapsulates, in the opinion of Her Majestys Opposition, the missed opportunity and failure of imagination arising from the sub-national review of July 2007. Ostensibly, the clause is about sustainable economic growth and land use. However, it is also about the Governments attitude towards, and their relationship with, local authorities and locally elected people, and the question of whether the Government trust them with the authority and autonomy to make decisions in their own areas.
We are clear that we cannot support the clause and will be making the case strongly that it is unnecessary. It was apparent from the public consultation, leading on from the sub-national review, that what local authorities and other key stakeholders wanted was more power to be devolved locally and less to be given to unelected quangos. As the hon. Member for North Cornwall said, the architecture of the clause as outlined in the Bill is extremely important, because it will establish a regional strategy made up of regional development agencies and leaders boards, which are not what people want.
Members will know that in February 2009, we published our document entitled Control ShiftReturning Power to Local Communities. The Local Government Association has also made significant representation about regional policy, particularly in its document, Prosperous Communities IIvive la dĂ(c)volution; not a catchy title, Mr. Amess. We pledged to abolish regional planning and housing powers exercised by regional government; we pledged to strip regional development agencies of their powers over planning and to give powers to local authorities to establish their own local enterprise partnerships to take over the RDA functions.

Daniel Rogerson: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman is setting out; it is also my partys determination to support retention as far as possible at local level. Does he share my view that at times, it might be appropriate for there to be pooling between local authorities where there is clear agreement between them about moving forward, and for them to come up with common strategies across areas that, unlike the Government, they might feel form more natural regions?

Stewart Jackson: The hon. Gentleman is as astute as ever in his observation that our policy is indeed about allowing local authorities to work together where there is commonality of interest, particularly on economic matters. One of our key areas of concern about regional policy since 1999 is the lack of recognition of the fact that regional government and policy is a top-down concept and does not take significant account of the particular social, economic and demographic issues that relate between authorities. To take the example of the hon. Gentlemans own region, the economic issues in west Cornwall might as well be a million miles awayin a different galaxyfrom those affecting the Forest of Dean, for instance, or east Dorset. The same is true of Milton Keynes compared with Thanet, in the south-east region.
Regional government has also failed to deliver what was once promised on expenditure, for instance. Some £13 billion was spent by regional development agencies between 1999 and 2008, and salaries have gone from £38 million to £120 million. There has been a 159 per cent. increase in the running costs of RDAs. I will come back to some of those figures later.
I am concerned about the confusion in the Government over the representations of the sub-national review. The Government said, following consultation, that they
expect the RDAs to delegate responsibility for spending to local authorities or sub-regions wherever possible unless there is a clear case for returning spending to the regional level.
They also said:
Legislation is not needed to deliver the spirit of the sub-national review reforms.
At the same time, officials in the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform were advising the Department for Communities and Local Government that
RDAs cannot delegate responsibility for the spending of their budget...RDAs will still have to formally approve projects proposed by sub-regional partners and we will be accountable for them.
There is clearly a tension in the Government between their public protestations about devolving local power to local councils and key stakeholders and what is being said in central Government, which is effectively that the purse strings, power, influence and decision making will remain central.

Julia Goldsworthy: The hon. Gentleman is highlighting another important distinction to be made between delegated and devolved decision making. It seems that a lot of the RDAs are simply implementing Government policy, which is a delegated process, rather than giving discretion to local authorities to decide what resources are spent on and how the decisions are taken.

Stewart Jackson: The hon. Lady has hit the nail on the head. In a nutshell, that is the difficulty of this clause on the regional strategy.
The Local Government Association estimated in the recent report that I quoted that there are 50 sub-national functional areas in England. Decision making needs to be taken at that level. Below the national level, markets for goods and services, housing and labour operate at the sub-regional or city regional level. My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon made that point when discussing tourism and the diversity of the local economy in North Yorkshire, as opposed, for instance, to west or south Yorkshire, and the right hon. Member for Doncaster, Central responded.
On the other noteworthy issue in the clause, we have been prevailed upon by the Campaign to Protect Rural England to ask whether the clause is only about delivering housing targets. Is it only about residential development and a top-down approach of cramming as much housing into key areas as possible, or is it truly about sustainable economic growth? Sustainable economic growthgrowth that can be sustained and that is within environmental limitsis included in public sector delivery agreement 7, but it is not in the Bill. Will the Minister address that issue in respect of the clause?
We will not be voting for the clause. We do not have time to discuss the philosophical and ideological differences between us and the Government; suffice it to say that they have had 10 years to devolve power truly and to give people responsibility for directing events in their own locales and districts. The clause does not do anything to give the electorate faith and trust in our shattered political system. Indeed, it centralises power among unelected, unaccountable people, which is something local people do not want. They want decisions made in their community to link back directly to the decisions they make at the ballot box. I fear that the clause will set back the cause of devolution and local autonomy.

David Curry: I took the precaution yesterday of reading the policy document on regional strategies issued by the Department specifically for the purposes of the Bill. Frankly, anyone reading it can find whatever they are looking for in it. It is like a vast fishing pond. One is pretty sure to net something, but some very bizarre species come out of it. To begin with, paragraph 2.2 says:
The Bill does not specify what the regional strategy should contain,
although most of the rest of the document goes on to do so.
Overall, the aim should be for a concise and succinct document.
Well, hope springs eternal in the human breast.
Although the responsible regional authorities must have regard to national policies and guidance issued by Government, it is expected specific policies would only be included in the regional strategy if there is a genuine and distinctive regional or sub-regional dimension. The regional strategy should not repeat national policy or guidance. Instead, the content would be driven by regionally specific issues that join up with national priorities. While the form and format of the regional strategy and the level of detail for any given topic is for each region to decide, it is expected that economic objectives, housing, climate change and renewable and low-carbon energy would receive particular focus.
If we read further down, we find that the strategy is required to have a section dealing with sports, culture and media. I am not sure whether the Yorkshire regional strategy is going to opine on whether Leeds United were wrongly demoted, or whether or not they should be promoted into the premiership. I think that the Minister for Regional Economic Development and Co-ordination and I might find a rare moment of agreement on what happened to Leeds United.
I am also not sure whether the north-west strategy should opine on whether it was wise to sell Ronaldo and who Manchester United ought to acquire as an alternative to him. Of course, if we are dealing with sport, TĂ(c)vezs situation is a subject of major regional preoccupation. As far as the south-west is concerned, I am aware that the football team is of more relatively local interest. I do not wish to upset my colleagues in the Liberal Democrats, but I am not aware that they have featured recently

Ian Stewart: On a point of order, Mr Amess, the right hon. Gentleman goes too far when he seeks to bring real politics into the debate by talking about Manchester United. Can you make sure that he stops it?

David Amess: The Committee is greatly amused by the hon. Gentlemans point of order, but it is not actually a point of order.

David Curry: Thank you, Mr. Amess. A couple of days ago, I was listening to some commentaries on the radio with the political correspondent from the Manchester Evening News. He opined that the hon. Member for Eccles was losing interest in politics. He also suggested that the hon. Gentleman did not care what happened about the boundary changes if the worse comes to the worse and the former Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government were to find that her executive decided she should spend more time with her motorbike[Interruption]and badge.
There is no point in pretending that the document is not prescriptive. In fact, it is extremely prescriptive on housing. It says in terms that housing strategies will be translated to targets in local communities. Now, one could say that that has not changed; all Housing Ministers have ended up imposing targets because building houses is an unpopular activitymy own Government did so, and it is time that this Government did so, too. It is quite optimistic to think that we can develop a scheme whereby housing is self-generating. It is worth a try, but it would be difficult.

Nick Raynsford: I very much concur with what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. In the unhappy situation that the Conservative party appears to pay little attention to the views that he is expressing, what thoughts does he have about an appropriate mechanism to ensure that housing figures can be delivered without the consequence of his partys current policy, which appears to leave that entirely to local authorities on the assumption that they would produce the necessary output? He said himself that that was optimistic.

David Curry: I think that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that there is a prior question. The problem is that the robustness of the statistics on which we base our housing demand calculations is always questioned. Let us be clear that they have often been robust in the sense of understanding demand, but we are all used to local communities carrying out housing surveys that are, frankly, extremely aspirational in character. If we were to translate them into figures for housing need, they would be very intellectually un-robust indeed. We should start by trying to have a more intellectually robust system for calculating the basis of need.
My second point about the strategy is that it might take five years to produce. It will be a fascinating documentI cannot say that it will be very entertaining, but we all get our pleasures in different ways. The time taken to produce it raises the crucial question: what assumptions should be made about public expenditure?

Daniel Rogerson: On a point of order, Mr Amess. I have been enjoying listening to the right hon. Gentlemans contribution, but given the contributions made by Conservative Front and Back Benchers, it strikes me that we seem to have moved into a stand part debate. I wondered whether that was your intention or if we should debate the amendments as we come to them.

David Amess: I have been listening carefully to the arguments deployed, football interventions aside. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon will perhaps be mindful, but he is perfectly in order at the moment. It is still my intention to allow a stand part debate if the Committee wants one.

David Curry: I am grateful to you for that, Mr. Amess. This is a crucial issue; we all know that we are in a period in which whoever forms a Government will cut public expenditure expressed in real terms. Let us hope that we will not have another stupid debate about that. [Interruption.] There is no point in the Whip making remarks under his breath; we all know that is a fact. As a huge amount of any regional strategy relies on public investment, what assumptions does one make about that public investment? It is a very good question, because five years is longer than the normal planning cycle for spending.
There are also practical issues. Let us take the most bizarre region of allthe south-east region. How does one produce a strategy for the south-east that excludes London? The south-east, plus London, represents a huge chunk of the United Kingdoms gross domestic product. Will someone produce a strategy with a great hole in the middle? How would someone do that, and how would people relate it? The document says nothing about how regional strategies should be stitched together. What happens if Yorkshire and the Humber produces a regional strategy that is at odds with, or competitive with, or does not match up with or is not part of a wider vision that encompasses the north-east or goes across into the north-west? [Interruption.] The Minister talks about the Northern Way. It has made some progress, but the idea that the Northern Way is some huge mechanism to link together the trans-Pennine economies is rather far-fetched.
How does one produce that strategy in an area such as the south-east? The question raised by the Liberal Democrats is legitimate: what is the definition of region? What is the economic, social or geographic cohesion of the regions? They are lines drawn on a map; there may be units for which it is much more logical to draw a strategy than those areas.
I have serious doubts about the concept of the regional strategy and whether it is practical given the uncertainties about the future of public expenditure and the inability of any Government to give those long-term perspectives on the flow of public expenditure. We all know that nobody can do that. We do not know how the strategies will mesh, or how the south-east will take account of the fact that London makes a great hole in the middle of its regional strategy.
Prescriptive intentions written in non-prescriptive language lie at the heart of the document. I have severe questions about whether the whole thing will work. I read:
Other infrastructure needs include: Waste. Water. Minerals. Culture, media and sport. Environmental infrastructure.
It is prescriptive down to its fingertips, despite its claim that it is not. It will be very difficult to deliver. I just hope it does not turn out like Gosplan, which took a huge amount of time to develop and a relatively small amount of time to understand that it could not be delivered.

Rosie Winterton: I have to confess to the Committee that I am extremely disappointed and dismayed by the Oppositions lack of understanding of the importance of ensuring that we are delivering on the economy not only at national and local level, but at regional level as well. It is vital that, when we look at some of the strategic issues that affect the economy, we have the spatial level to do so. It is true that individual local authorities have an important part to play in driving through economic development and regeneration. Given the stance that the Opposition took earlier in pouring cold water over the ability and duties that we are placing on local authorities with regard to economy, I am surprised that they are suddenly saying that everything must be done now.
There is no doubt whatsoever that some issues are best dealt with at the regional level. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon surely remembers that Michael Heseltine, when he was a Secretary of State, recognised the important role that needed to be played at the regional level when he devolved the Government offices to the regions. There was a certain all-party consensus on the mattermy right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will correct me if I am wrong. I think that there was recognition that certain decisions could not be simply made nationally and forced on the regions and that certain decisions were not possible for individual local authorities to take themselves.

Daniel Rogerson: Will the Minister give way?

Rosie Winterton: I will give way in a second, because I want to give some examples. On transport infrastructure provision, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon has just poured cold water on the efforts of the Northern Way to provide a cohesive economic overview. Actually, the Northern Way is doing extremely important work on the benefits of a high-speed rail link to the north. The cross-Pennine belt has travel-to-work areas and the connections between the ports are vital. Having a view that crosses those regional boundaries is not only possible under the legislation, but beneficial. When we look at large-scale investments, it is important to have a regional approach.
When we look at countryside protection and the green belts, it is difficult, if not sometimes impossible, to address those issues at the local levelit needs long-term planning. The right hon. Gentleman said, Oh, these might be five or ten-year looks ahead. That is absolutely right, and so they should be. If we are to get that type of infrastructure planning done coherently, we need that regional look. Particularly, with regard to the amendments, we need to set the boundaries, which have been based on a lot economic evidence, while being able to work across those boundaries. Absolutely nothing in the Bill will stop that.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned a situation in the south-east and London. There are some good examples in the south-east, such as Thames Gateway

Stewart Jackson: A shambles.

Rosie Winterton: Quite a lot of people would be dismayed to think that, if the Conservative party ever achieved power, it would think the work in the Thames Gateway a shambles. Some big investment companies that are putting money in and creating jobs would be disappointed to hear that.

Daniel Rogerson: The Minister seems to be labouring under the misapprehension that my party, as an Opposition party, is opposed to the concept of regional decision making or a regional tier. In most democracies, regions are based on cultural, economic, geographical and all sorts of other factors, which make the regions work and become recognisable by people. No one is going to die in the trenches for the south-west region, and that is a fundamental problem. I completely agree with what the Minister is saying about a regional tier of government, so she does not have to worry about us opposing that. But what should those regions be and how should they work? I hope she can say more about why the Government feel that regions should exist for ever under boundaries set up, as I understand it, by a previous Conservative Government, in the days of needing responses to nuclear threats, regional command centres and so on.

Rosie Winterton: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman got the idea of a nuclear threat. This was about making sure that central Government departments had at regional level a Government office that was able to bring together the different strands of policy in order to look at things like housing, planning and, increasingly, the environment. This is not about a nuclear threat, which is a rather odd concept. It is true, however, that there is regional resilience planning at regional level, which is important. I do not think, however, that was the overriding reason for devolving power to Government offices. As I said earlier, the population coverage tends to be about 5 million in each of the Government areassimilar to the German LĂ¤nder. This is about the right level of population density for proper economic planning.

Stewart Jackson: The Minister is advancing the argument that we should look at the record of the past to judge the efficacy or otherwise of the clause. What does she make therefore of the figures that show, with the exception of the north-east, that regional economies grew faster in the period 1992 to 1999 than they did in the period of RDAs in 1999 to 2006, and that the United Kingdom now has the widest gap in economies between regions in the whole of the European Union? It has widened further in the past 10 years.

Rosie Winterton: I would challenge what the hon. Gentleman says, because if he looks at the difference, for example, between the competitiveness of Yorkshire and the Humber and of the south-eastthis is true of many of the northern regional areasit has lessened since 1997. There has been a profound effect on the least well-off economies. Since 1997, the gross value added per head of all English regions has improved relative to the EU15 average. We have seen a narrowing of the gap in GVA growth rates between the greater south-east and the other English regions. That has reversed a trend which had been in place for 80 years.
I have done a lot of work on the regions, and I would be surprised if, when the hon. Gentleman looks at the facts, he does not accept, as do many of his Conservative councillors and councillors from all parties, that this kind of integrated spatial planning is necessary. The difficultythis is where the sub-national review comes into the equationis that when we looked at the whole issue of regional government, I supported that proposal, because I thought that it was the ultimate regional accountability. However, the electorate did not think the same way, so we have to look at how to build in the input from local authorities in the area. That is why the regional development agencies and the leaders boards have to agree the overall regional strategy.
That is why this clause is so important and why the Opposition parties are wrong in not recognising the importance to the economy of this kind of planning, particularly during an economic downturn. What is coming to the fore is the need to be able to look forward over the next five to ten years to what is our regional economy going to look like, what skills we will need, what planning policies, what housing policies, and what industrial strategy we will need. It is not possible simply to do that at local authority level. This is an extremely important clause.
What happened previously was that regional assemblies were dealing, to an extent, with one part of the issuestransport and planninglocal authorities were dealing with housing and the RDA was looking at regeneration. The importance of this measure is that all of those are being brought together in one strategy, because there is increasing recognition that transport, planning and housing are crucial to the development of the economy. That is why opposition to this clause betrays a lack of understanding of the need to regenerate our regional economies. I am particularly surprised at the opposition from the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon, because I always worked on the assumption that he recognised the importance to places like Yorkshire and the Humber of that kind of investment strategy.

David Curry: There is a difference between supporting an investment strategy and having doubts about whether we need some super-duper global plan to deliver it. A huge amount of what the right hon. Lady has said prompts the question of what kind of public finance is going to be available over future years.
The right hon. Lady mentioned skills. What assumptions will those drawing up the plan be entitled to entertain about the funding available, for example, for colleges of further education, which are major providers of skills? What assumptions are we entitled to entertain about the volume of money which local authorities might be able to dispose of, for example, for their transport and highways budgets, or, for that matter, for national road building? What assumptions are they entitled to entertain about the funding available for major infrastructure projects, such as a high-speed link, for example?
Public expenditure accounts for a huge proportion of the gross domestic product of all the regions, just as public sector employment is probably the second or third biggest employer in every region. I do not see how you we plan unless Government gives us some working assumptions about the public funding available, not least because so much public funding and private funding are linked togetherone is the catalyst for the other. There are huge assumptions here, and we have not been given a clue about them.

Rosie Winterton: This is complete nonsense. Is the right hon. Gentleman committing his Front-Bench team to say that, since local authorities should be the only ones doing economic planning, they are going to be given a forecast of 20 years of actual public expenditure? He is entirely missing the point of a regional spatial strategy, which is about saying, for example, in the Yorkshire and Humber area, what the future possibilities are in green technologies. What does the region need to plan for regarding skills? What does it need to plan for in transport? We need to shape economic thinking, showing inward investors that we seek to provide, within the region, the right economic conditions and the right education, bringing together the universities in the way we have been, looking at research and development for the future.
The right hon. Gentleman knows what happens if such a long-term strategy is set out. Implementation will be geared towards the relevant amount of public expenditure, but his argument and attitude is, Unless you can put a figure on every single part of the strategy, we should not do anything. Lets not have a go and think about the real economic forward planning; do nothing because you cant put an exact figure on every single part of it.

Nick Raynsford: My right hon. Friend is making an extremely valid point. I listened to the entirely intelligent response from the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon, who rightly is trying to find certainty about future prospects and trends. However, I must tell him that that is not life. He is slightly overwhelmed by his own interpretation of the measure as some kind of latter-day soviet Gosplan that determines everything according to the availability of public finances.
As all of us with reasonably long memories are aware, the Government of whom the right hon. Gentleman was a distinguished member in the 1990s had very pessimistic views about public expenditure, and cut it. As a housing Minister, he had to put up with some very serious reductions in his budget. The climate has changed, and we have seen considerable investment since then. Inevitably, the downturn will have consequences for a while, but it would be wrong to base planning for the future simply on assumptions of public sector investment. Planning should be based on the wider economic imperatives, which is what is behind the clause.

Rosie Winterton: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I wish to add only this: I have meetings as a regional Minister with potential inward investors, and they want strong leadership, not only at local authority level, but at regional level. This combination, in which we bringing together the different strands of economic planning with business-focused regional development agencies, alongside political leadership through the leaders board, is the way to convince people that we are serious about ensuring that our regional economies are as robust as possible.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich says, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon, who spoke the other day about the contribution of North Yorkshire and the fact that plans had to be in place to rescue inadequate tourism or whatever, ought to be listening to what businesses, economists, and potential inward investors are saying about the issue.

David Curry: The Minister is making a distinction between substance and form. My question is this: do we need this big, overarching machinery to deliver the goods? The universities in Yorkshire have a good reputation of getting together to deliver high technology, and they are linked worldwide. The universities in Sheffield, Leeds and York, which are very high quality, do not need a regional strategy to know what they have to do, because they are getting on and doing it.
The Minister extolled The Northern Way, but even if it was as successful as she said, that was done without a regional strategy. I do not question whether it is desirable for people to know where they are going, but I do not want everything frozen for five years while people labour to produce a strategy that might be overturned by events.
By the way, I was concerned about the low value-added in tourism in Yorkshire. We need to increase that.

Rosie Winterton: Again, the right hon. Gentleman is wrong in assuming that the universities do not want to be involved in the kind of forward planning that we are talking about. I chair the Yorkshire and Humber economic delivery group, which seeks to ensuring we have a regional response to problems resulting from the economic downturn, and is also looking to the future. Because of the way in which the universities in Yorkshire have joined together, they have taken a clear view of the regions needs and said, This is what we need to do to help attract inward investment and ensure that our graduates remain in the region. They are looking at research and development needs, and how universities play a part in local industries. They are extremely focused on the regional agenda, which is why they have come together in such a way, as their region is one of the best in recognising the importance of regional input.
The right hon. Gentleman, as a Member representing a constituency in that area, really ought to look a little closer and perhaps with a slightly more open mind at the benefits we are gaining from the regional approach. I hope that he will be pleasantly surprised by what is happening, but it is incredibly disappointing that the hard work going on at a regional level, often including Conservative councillors, is not in the slightest way recognised by the Opposition.

Ian Stewart: I advise my right hon. Friend to be cautious about accepting the Damascene conversion of the Opposition to localism and local democracy. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon has been leading a working party of sorts looking at localismthey are no doubt attempting to be the new Labour-y Tories for the future. My view is straightforward: it is a bit rich for a party that voted against last years Local Transport Bill, thereby wishing to diminish real local democracy, to start advocating local democracy in this Committee.

Rosie Winterton: My hon. Friend is right to remind us that during the passage of the Local Transport Act 2008, the Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen were out of touch with what their local councillors recognised as a good Bill that allowed local authorities to plan properly according to local needs. As I recall, local councillors wrote to those Front-Bench spokesmen asking, Why do you never listen to a word we say? That is another example of them not wanting to let go, and not recognising or allowing the kind of economic development that is absolutely vital, especially in these difficult economic times.

Stewart Jackson: I had hoped that there would be some consensus in the debate. The right hon. Lady fails to recognise that we have legitimate concerns about whether there is a diversity of provision at regional level, which is dealt with in the clause. She will undoubtedly be aware of a report by the respected International Journal of Urban and Regional Research in 2006 that found, notwithstanding the huge amounts of money that had been spent by the RDAs,
scant allowance for region specificities as they have all produced strategies that reveal a remarkable generic resemblance.
In other words, the RDAs are not adding value that will help localities, but are in fact using a template given to them by central Government.

Rosie Winterton: It is quite wrong to say that the RDAs are not adding value. The recent report to which I referred showed that every pound spent brought £4 of value to the region. I can send a copy of that report to the hon. Gentleman because he really ought to ensure that he looks at the importance to the regional economies of the work that is being carried out by the RDAs.
Finally, it is important to stress that regional boundaries are a framework rather than a straitjacket. As I have said, we support and encourage joining up between local areas and cross-boundary work at a regional level. There is flexibility in the Bill. I suspect that the amendments are probing but, following my reassurance, I hope that they will be rejected if pressed to a Division. I stress again that this clause is one of the most important in the Bill; voting against it would be to the detriment of the economic prosperity of all our regions in the future.

Daniel Rogerson: I was pleased that the Minister addressed the issue in the amendment at the end of this long debate. We could have had a shorter debate that would have quite clearly said that the Liberal Democrats feel that the regional boundaries do not necessarily make sense, although some might. I am not an expert on all regions, and I would not seek to be, as these issues are for people in the regions and their elected representatives to decide.
There seems to be a fixation among Government Members that the boundaries are right. I listened for the Ministers defence as to why they are right. She said that they are about the same size as the LĂ¤nder in Germany, but given that the LĂ¤nder include Bavaria and Bremen, which are of different size and population, that argument does not stack up. If we are merely going to chop up the country to get the population numbers absolutely right, the process becomes even more meaningless. All that makes it obvious that we need more debate about what the regions are.

Rosie Winterton: How does the hon. Gentleman envisage the reorganisation of all the boundaries happening? There should be flexibility to work across and within boundaries, but at this point, when there is a complete focus on getting through the economic downturn, while still looking beyond it to what our regions are going to look like, the uncertainty that would be caused by a huge reorganisation would make that extremely unwise. How long does he think such a review would take?

Daniel Rogerson: The whole point is that that would be determined by local people. If they think their region is right, that is fine, but presumably the Minister must agree that it is pointless to put together a regional strategy that people feel does not work and does not represent any community of interest. It is very time consuming to go through a process such as the recent regional spatial strategies and to draw up documents that may or may not come into force, or have influence over a particular area, when the people within that area do not feel that it represents a real region.
I am sure that there is the facility for cross-border working, but that leads only to duplication. Rather than having cross-border working between borders in areas that do not make sense, why not have regions that work, that represent communities of interest and that recognise peoples economic, geographical and cultural affinities to get a set of strategies going forward that are right? It is crucial to get that right now, even more than in the future.
In the wider debate about whether there is a purpose to having a regional tier of government and that way of doing things, the Minister came back time and again to the idea that Government offices somehow represent devolution, but in my book they do not. A civil servant who is directed by a Minister, or as part of a Whitehall Department, does not represent any form of devolution just because they sit somewhere out in a region rather than in Whitehall.

Julia Goldsworthy: Does my hon. Friend believe that the power is the equivalent of having a bank branch in the town? The branch does not determine local policy, but implements the main banks policy. Government offices for the regions are there to do the Governments bidding in the regions, not to make decisions.

Daniel Rogerson: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. People who have been in banking for a long time might say that when bank managers made direct decisions on whom to lend money to and there was genuine devolution of such decisions, people made more sensible lending decisions that we have seen in recent years.

Rosie Winterton: It is amazing that the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne saysI am surprised that the hon. Member for North Cornwall backs her upthat a local bank just implements its central banks policy. The point is that people are saying that they want local branches with the ability to consider what is happening in the local area and to interpret the central banks policy to determine what is appropriate. I said about Government offices that there is an important point that one can have a centralised approachthat is what the hon. Member for North Cornwall and, amazingly, the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne are now sayingor the Government can be present in the regions. Michael Heseltine importantly accepted that it was important have an approach that recognised the particular issues that pertain within different regions.

Daniel Rogerson: That remark shows that the Minister has not acknowledged the debate that we are attempting to promote. How can the Government have a policy appropriate to a region when that region does not function as a region? As the hon. Member for Peterborough said, a regional policy that seeks to reconcile the situation in Swindon with that on the Isles of Scilly just does not work. They have completely different economies and geographical circumstances. I am not saying that regional policies should function at parish level. There are natural communities, but we need more of a debate about what those regions are and what represents a sensible region.
You said, Mr. Amess, that we could have a stand part debate on the clause, and perhaps we can return to whether regional strategies are right. So far, we have not heard any justification for the current regional boundaries or why they should be inviolate, so I shall press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 2, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived.

David Amess: Before we move on to the next amendment, this morning I have indulged hon. Members, and we have had a very wide debate on the first group of amendments. I am still minded to have a clause stand part debate later, but I have decided that it will be a short debate.

Daniel Rogerson: I beg to move amendment 100, in clause 67, page 50, line 16, after first the, insert sustainable.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 72, in clause 67, page 50, line 19, leave out from (b) to end of line 20 and insert
must be designed so as to ensure that the regional strategy as a whole
(a) contributes to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change; and
(b) is consistent with the proposals and policies prepared by the Secretary of State under section 13(1) of the Climate Change Act 2008..

Daniel Rogerson: I shall attempt to be brief and bear in mind the instructions that you have quite rightly given the Committee, Mr. Amess. The amendments seek to put the principle of sustainability at the heart of any regional strategy on any boundary. We are concerned that, given the role that the Bill gives to regional development agencies, which focus on delivering economic targets and growth, important gains that have been made on sustainability policy will be lost. We had such a debate during last years Planning Bill Committee, which led to the Planning Act 2008, where it was felt both in Committee and on Report that it was important that every effort was taken to ensure that important principles of sustainability lie at the heart of any legislation and any regional planning process.
The Governments planning guidance shows that there has been a growing awareness of the issues, particularly in relation to climate change. Amendment 72 centres on the mitigation of climate change and the Governments ambitious targets, which were approved by the House last year, to tackle climate change. Adaptation is also important; it is absolutely vital that any new planning development is able to adapt to climate change, which is sadly well under way. That is my view, and it is also the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne, who originally tabled amendment 72, as well as the view of other members of the Committee who have added their names to the amendment, which now stands in the name of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle).
The amendments are crucial, and I hope that the Government will accept them. They will reassure people who have to engage with regional strategies that the gains in relation to sustainability policy and tackling climate change are included in the Bill, and that a core function of the strategies is not only to address the economic future of the region, but to address issues of sustainability and climate change.

Stewart Jackson: It is a shame that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) is not able to speak to his amendment; the Whips have no doubt intervened to ensure that he does other things on a Tuesday morning. I heartily concur with the views of the hon. Member for North Cornwall. I was remiss in not fully quoting from the public service agreement delivery agreement 7, which seeks to encapsulate the meaning of sustainable economic growth as
economic growth that can be sustained and is within environmental limits, but also enhances the environment and social welfare, and avoids greater extremes in future economic cycles.
We concur with that.
We should also not disregard the importance of the Sustainable Communities Act 2007, which had cross-party support, and in which the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne played a significant part. On that basis, we will support the amendment if it is pushed to a vote.

Rosie Winterton: I will be very brief. Essentially, clause 70 requires the regional strategy to take account of sustainable development principles and to be subject to a sustainability appraisal. It applies to all policies in the regional strategy, and it would be superfluous to add a specific reference to land use and development. Amendment 72 would have a negligible effect, other than to make explicit what is required by clause 74(1)(a). For that reason, I hope that the Opposition will not press their amendments.

Daniel Rogerson: I am not surprised by the Ministers response. In my few years in the House, it has been usual practice for Ministers to say that the legislation covers the issue that we have raised, even if it is sometimes hard to find the key definition that we are looking for.

Paul Goodman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister has been putting two arguments simultaneously? When it suits her, she has said that the duties in Opposition amendments should not be included in the Bill. At other times, she has said that it is essential that duties on local authorities are included in the Bill in extraordinary detail.

Daniel Rogerson: The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point as usual.
The Minister indicated that we should consider these matters under clause 74(1)(a), which refers to
national polices and advice contained in guidance which has been given by the Secretary of State.
I do not think that people will feel that that is explicit enough. That guidance may change, and there is a whole range of guidance. The issues that we are discussing, particularly with regard to climate change, are of such overriding importance that I cannot see a reason for not including our proposals in the Bill.

Nick Raynsford: My understanding of what my right hon. Friend the Minister said is that amendment 72 was covered by clause 74(1)(a), which refers to having regard to
national polices...contained in guidance...given by the Secretary of State,
which is exactly in line with the thinking in amendment 72. However, will the hon. Gentleman tell me what on earth amendment 100, which inserts the word sustainable in line 16, does to add to the duty that we are discussing? The duty is absolutely clear and precise, and all the responsibilities in this part of the Bill are covered. The duty is not obscure or difficult to findit is pretty clear. Clause 70 says:
The responsible regional authorities and the Secretary of State must exercise their functions under this Part in relation to the regional strategy...with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development.
That seems pretty clear. I cannot see what on earth the point is of adding another clause or subsection to the Bill to say exactly the same.

Daniel Rogerson: The difference is that contributing to is fairly vague. One could contribute to the achievement of sustainable development in a fairly minor way and satisfy the provisions. The importance of these issues necessitates putting our proposals where we propose in the amendment and saying that the key purpose of any regional strategy is to secure sustainable development.
Definitions of the word sustainable are commonly accepted, including in the Sustainable Communities Act 2007. I would be far more comfortable and reassured if we included sustainable development as a primary purpose of the regional strategy, rather than saying, The regional strategy is there to look at economic development. In passing, it may contribute to other issues. That is just not good enough.

Stewart Jackson: I hesitate to speak for the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton, who is absent, but my recollection is that he specifically told the Minister on Second Reading that he was endeavouring to include the amendment in the Bill because he had no idea of the real meaning and practical effect of sustainability in his areathe north-west. The issue is self-evident. For that reason alone, the hon. Gentlemans amendment should stand.

Daniel Rogerson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for those closing remarks. It is clear that there are different views across the Committee. None the less, many hon. Members feel that the amendment deals with an important principle so I wish to press it to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived.

Daniel Rogerson: I beg to move amendment 101, in clause 67, page 50, line 35, at end insert
(9) Prior to the regional strategy being approved for a region it must be passed by a vote at all participating authorities within the region..
We have discussed how agreements reached at regional level, as defined by the Government, are seen as binding on local communities by their democratically elected authorities. A similar gap has emerged with regional spatial strategies. It is clear that up and down the country, there are differences of opinion among local residents about what regional spatial strategies propose and among local authorities about what is appropriate for their areas. As local authorities are the democratically elected representatives of their areas, it would be more democratic to have a framework through which local authority members can vote on whether a regional strategy should come into force.
I am sure that the word veto will pass the Ministers lips in her response because the amendment would hand a veto to individual local authorities over regional spatial strategies. However, if a democratically elected local authority feels so strongly that what is being proposed over its head for the Governments idea of a region is inappropriate, there ought to be a means by which it can call people back to the table to enter into further negotiations to ensure that the strategy is appropriate to the needs of people across the region.

David Curry: What would happen if one small council were to say no? In the south-east, there are 77 councils. The basis on which it would say no would almost certainly be pressure from inhabitants about proposed housing plans. How many would have to say no and how much renegotiation would have to take place? What would happen if the other side of the argument did not want to budge? I do not like the concept, but if we have it, we must try to make it work.

Daniel Rogerson: The right hon. Gentleman is responding to the issue of a veto that I raised. Part of the problem, as he has pointed out, is how difficult it is to conceive of the south-east as a region and to set regional priorities that would be appropriate to all local authorities across the area. The amendment is what the Minister referred to earlier as a probing amendment. I wanted to prompt a discussion about what role democratically elected members of local authorities should have in approving regional strategies.

David Curry: If the hon. Gentleman wants to build in a safeguarding mechanism, would it not have been more sensible to propose a weighted vote that depends on the proportion of the population of the region represented by each local authority? That is analogous to the European Union objective. That would be a forum for renegotiation, but there would have to be links between rural and urban areas to force it to happen.

Daniel Rogerson: We could move into the type of debates that we held in our consideration of the Business Rate Supplements Bill about double key votes and those sorts of issues. However, the purpose of the amendment is to prompt a discussion about what role democratically elected members might have in the approval of the regional strategy.
The Bill sets out a role for leaders boards, which are an attempt to replace regional assemblies. Regional assemblies, because they are unelected and because they have all sorts of co-opted people on them, have proved to be an experiment that has not worked; the Government seem to acknowledge that with their plan for ending them. Leaders boards are another attempt to put in place some role for local authorities in this sector of regional planning. Again, however, they are somewhat limited.
People elect councillors in their areas in the hope that they will be able to take decisions on their behalf. The democratic gloss that has been put on this regional policy is that leaders boards will be in place, but people will not feel reassured that leaders boards are either powerful enough or sufficiently legitimate to carry out that role in regional planning. The Minister has also talked about Regional Select Committees in the past and the role that they have in scrutiny. However, the Liberal Democrats have highlighted the fact that there are weaknesses with that system too.
A number of solutions have been proposed. I agree with the Minister that ultimately the only solution is to have a democratically elected tier of regional government in areas where there is public support for that system. In passing, I could mention that there is still a petition somewhere in Downing street with 50,000 signatures that calls for a Cornish assembly which the Minister might like to look at in her new role.
We come back to our earlier debate about whether or not these regions actually work. From my point of view, I do not think that we will ever move to a stage of having democratically elected regional assemblies unless the people in each region feel that that is the region in which they belong. That is a problem that our earlier debate attempted to overcome, but I will not revisit that debate now, Mr. Amess, as I am sure that you would rule me out of order if I did so.
The amendment is a probing amendment to prompt discussion about whether or not there should be a greater role for local authority members in considering these regional strategies, because they are the people who are held to account by the electorate, as Members of Parliament are, yet neither local councillors nor MPs have a significant role in the planning process as set out in the Bill. I do not think that leaders boards go far enough.

Stewart Jackson: We were getting on well with the Liberal Democrats, but I am afraid that we will have to disagree with them on this issue. For the Liberal Democrats, it again comes down to their desire to square the circle. They find themselves between a rock and a hard place, because they are committed to regional government and the diktat of the European Union, which of course was the genesis of regional policy, but at the same time they have to pay lip service to the local authority, local autonomy and democracy. They are therefore trying to square the circle, by supporting a regional strategy while at the same time effectively encouraging councils to veto the regional strategy, as it is set out in the legislation.
The Liberal Democrats cannot have it both ways. Our heart is with their desire for local democracy, but the amendment is effectively a wrecking amendment, because the fact is that it is completely impractical. There are large numbers of authorities in the south-east, the south-west and other regions. Even if one accepted the Ministers premise that business needs certainty and the capacity to make long-term decisions at regional levela premise that has not been demonstrably proved and that will not be proved by Ministersthe amendment goes against that premise. How can that kind of long-term planning and certainty be possible when, for instance, 77 local authorities in the south-west have been invited to impose a veto? The amendment is impractical, but we are sympathetic to parts of the argument made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall. We will be sitting on our hands regarding this particular amendment.

Rosie Winterton: With your permission, Mr. Amess, my instinct is that I will be able to address more fully some of the issues later, particularly the leaders board, which is dealt with in the next clause, and the process of approving the strategies, which is dealt with in clause 75. In the meantime, the problem with the amendment is that it would duplicate provisions elsewhere in this part of the Bill, and would fundamentally change the partnership approach, which we devised as a result of extensive consultation last year. For those reasons, I urge the Committee to oppose it.

Daniel Rogerson: I said in my opening remarks that I did not intend to press the amendment to a vote: I simply sought an opportunity to raise the issue. There are serious questions to be asked about the democratic accountability of the set-up proposed in the Bill, but as the Minister says, we will discuss that at a later stage, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

David Amess: Before we debate clause 67 stand part, I remind Members that although this is a key clause, most of the issues have been explored. I ask those who wish to contribute to make their remarks brief.

Stewart Jackson: I will be brief, Mr. Amess. You have been remarkably flexible in allowing the debates that we have had to take place.
I do not think that the Minister has made a comprehensive case for the clause. Many of the concerns that we have expressed have been dismissed, particularly about the lack of plurality of delivery for regional development agencies. We are not minded to support her arguments on the specific point about sustainability or on the point that I raised earlier about the failure of imagination to progress from the sub-national review in 2007 and listen to what local people were saying. It was not necessary or appropriate to disband the regional assemblies, with their stakeholders and directly elected local councillors. The Government had a great opportunity at that stage to build on the success that they had achieved, to a certain extent, with the regional assemblies.
The Minister also failed to make a coherent case for the added value that she claims regional development agencies have made. We could parry figures across the Committee as to whether they really have added value. A similar period before they were established in 1999 suggests that they have not greatly added value, given the huge amount of money spent on them. In our document, Control Shift, published in February, we made clear our view on regional strategies. We are not saying that we have all the answers, but the premise of our well-established policy involves both giving more power to local authorities and encouraging them to work around their natural economic and social demographic affinities. On that basisI hope that we will have the support of the Liberal Democratswe will vote against the clause in its entirety.

Daniel Rogerson: In responding to what the hon. Member for Peterborough said about his partys vision, my concern is that the proposals outlined by the Conservatives contain no provision for more institutionalised regional co-operation, even if people in those regions believe it appropriate. Perhaps unusually, we find ourselves sitting between the other parties. The Governments view is that the regions are right, and that that is the way forward; the Conservative partys view is that regional government is altogether a bad thing. In our view, regional government may be appropriate for a particular area, and the people living there may be convinced that it is the right model for them. However, regional government should be able to develop far more organically than being imposed from the centre.
My party does not have a problem with the concept of regional planning, but the clause uses the existing regional boundaries, which is a problem. I am expected to return to my electorate and tell them that the regional spatial strategy process has been a success and has met with such universal approval that the model will be developed, and that we shall look at all sorts of other issues in a new all-singing, all-dancing regional strategy. I believe that my constituents would laugh in my face, which is why I cannot support the clause.

Rosie Winterton: That is a glaring example of the Lib-Dems sitting on the fence. They do not want to make a decision. The official Opposition are at least saying that they do not believe in the idea of any kind of regional intervention. That fits their overall strategy, which is that nothing can be done during these difficult economic times, that public intervention is not the right approach, and that we should sit back and let things take their course; they have no idea of the key role of Government and local government in ensuring a good, well-thought out strategy for the future or of what it could do for the economy.
The traditional position that the Conservatives have adopted is a return to the free-market economics that let people down in previous economically difficult times. The Liberal Democrats simply cannot make up their minds. I hope that the Committee will support the amendment, as it is incredibly important to the countrys future.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 6.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 67 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 68

Leaders boards

Daniel Rogerson: I beg to move amendment 102, in clause 68, page 51, line 3, leave out must and insert may.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 103, in clause 68, page 51, line 4, after second a, insert representative.
Amendment 104, in clause 68, page 51, line 5, leave out (whether or not incorporated).

Daniel Rogerson: As the hon. Member for Wycombe said earlier, we return to a continuing theme. As we move through the Bill, many of our debates will relate to the same theme. I was intrigued to hear the Minister describe any position between defending the existing regions as they stand and having no regions as sitting on the fence, as if there can be no middle ground between those two views.

Rosie Winterton: It is very easy to describe it that way.

Daniel Rogerson: The Governments position is now on the record, and I am sure that it will be evaluated by all. No regional policy can move forward along any other line than that relating to the boundaries that were set fairly arbitrarily a decade or so ago.
Similarly, we now move on to a discussion about leaders boards that began briefly on our last amendment to the previous clause. The issue is whether leaders boards represent the appropriate mechanism for all areas of the country to have input into any emerging regional policy, or strategy. On reading the Bill, our view is that saying that a leaders board must be the way to go for everybody is too prescriptive. That is why we suggest taking out the word must and inserting the word may in its place. There might well be other ways in which we can have a representative element to considering regional policy that would work alongside the regional development agency, interact with it and reassure people that elected representatives have a say in what the policy is. To that end, I am happy to move amendment 102, which seeks to allow greater flexibility in determining what the democratic arrangements should be in terms of moving forward with regional policy.

Stewart Jackson: I will be extremely brief because I am speaking only to this particular amendment and will make substantive comments on the clause later during the stand-part debate. We are inclined to support the amendment because generally the powers contained in the clause are too draconian, too sweeping, take insufficient account of the role of local authorities and give way too much power to the Secretary of State. On that basis, may instead of must is the correct way forward.

Rosie Winterton: I urge the Committee to reject the amendment because it is important that people are able to see the arrangements that have been put in place for how leaders boards are to be established. It will be for participating authorities to decide how they wish to organise themselves, but, as I have said, it is important that people are able to see what those arrangements are. Having a scheme in place is an important part of that process as it means that leaders boards will be streamlined and manageable, and that there is clarity about how participating authorities will work together with the RDAs to fulfil their duties, including in relation to how they resolve any differences. That is important because, in a sense, it goes back to the points that I am sure will be made about how the process takes place and how people understand it. Without a scheme in place, it is difficult to see how there would be that transparency. That is why the amendments are not the right way forward.

Daniel Rogerson: I hear what the Minister has to say about there being flexibility for regions to come up with their own arrangements, but it strikes me that there is freedom for them to come up with their own arrangements as long as there is some form of leaders board. That is a bit like Henry Ford saying that people can have a car in any colour they want as long as it is black. That is the problem for us; the measure is too prescriptive. On that basis and given that there seems to be some support on the Committee for pressing the matter to a vote, I will seek to do so.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived.

Daniel Rogerson: I beg to move amendment 105, in clause 68, page 51, line 6, after is, insert for the purposes of this Act.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 106, in clause 68, page 51, line 6, leave out Leaders Board and insert Responsible Regional Authority..
Amendment 107, in clause 68, page 51, line 23, leave out a Leaders Board and insert the Responsible Regional Authority..
Amendment 108, in clause 68, page 51, line 24, leave out Leaders Board and insert Responsible Regional Authority..
Amendment 110, in clause 68, page 51, line 32, leave out Leaders Board and insert the Responsible Regional Authority..

Daniel Rogerson: Again, the amendments refer to what the democratic accountability will be within the future regional structure. Although their aims are the same, the amendments have two elements. They seek to be less restrictive about what the democratic oversight should be. The term Leaders Board should be replaced throughout the clause with the Responsible Regional Authority and allow such authorities to be defined as local authorities coming together to set priorities and draw up regional proposals along the lines that we discussedthat regions are made up of the local authorities in the area rather than imposed from above. Therefore, local authorities need a far stronger role in determining strategy and policy.

Paul Goodman: Does he propose taking the leaders board out of clause 68 due to the Hitchin and Harpenden consideration raised on Second Reading? He may be more expert than I am, but, as far as I can tell, nowhere in the Bill are the leaders who will sit on the board defined. Are they local authority leaders or nursery group leaders? Perhaps the Minister will tell us.

Daniel Rogerson: The hon. Gentleman raises an excellent point and, indeed, what mechanisms determine how many representatives of districts, for example, there are in two-tier areas? That also remains to be clarified.
The second element to the amendments is removing the regional development agency from who the responsible regional authorities are. The regional development agency should be more of a delivery arm for regional strategy than a body equal to local authorities in determining what that regional strategy should be. That is the approach that my party would take. Those who take decisions about spending large amounts of money and drafting strategy ought to be democratically accountable. People employed through the regional development agency are there to deliver that strategy and ensure that that vision becomes a reality, rather than be on an equal footing.

Stewart Jackson: We are not minded to support the Liberal Democrat amendments because they are not sufficiently robust and do not further our knowledge of how the clause would work in practice. In fact, they go against the Liberal Democrat protestations about wishing to focus primarily on a bottom-up process. The leaders board is an imperfect system, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe made clear, and we will debate that in detail in the clause stand part debate, However, surely replacing the leaders boards is better than the opaque concept of a regional body, notwithstanding the problem that too much power may be vested in, for instance, one or two individuals in a local authority or in all the local authorities in the south-west. Therefore, we do not feel disposed to support the amendment and will have plenty to say about particular aspects of the clause in the clause stand part debate.

Rosie Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Amess. Will you give me some guidance on whether we are also addressing amendment 110? I am not sure that it was referred to, or moved.

David Amess: The Minister would be entirely right to address remarks to amendment 110. It was part of the group, and I thought that the hon. Gentleman referred to it obliquely.

Rosie Winterton: I must have missed that nugget.
I ask the Committee to reject these amendments, because it is not clear what they would achieve. It appears that they would make local authorities the responsible regional authority without the involvement of regional development agencies. When we come to the stand part debate, I hope that it will become clear that we envisage a partnership between the local authorities and RDAs in drawing up the strategy. We think that that is particularly important given the focus on the economy, but the amendments would limit that partnership.
On amendment 110, I hope that I can reassure the Committee that following amendments in another place, the Bill now requires that the access to information provisions in the Local Government Act 1972, with suitable modifications, as required, be applied to leaders boards as constituted by local authorities. We are exploring, with RDAs and local authorities, how best to manage access to information for their joint working on regional strategies outside legislation. With that reassurance and explanation, I hope that the Committee will reject the amendment.

Daniel Rogerson: Through the amendments, we sought to identify ways to allow for democratic involvement other than the leaders board formula proposed by the Government. I do not think that the Minister seeks to be prescriptive, but the provisions talk only about leaders being represented. It would have been good to have slightly more leeway for local areas to come together and work out appropriate arrangements for their particular circumstances. I have no problem with the concept that RDAs and local authorities should work in partnership. However, there is sometimes a slight power imbalance in that relationship. We would seek to set up a democratic framework that would put democratically elected people at the heart of decision making. The appointed members and officers of the RDA should work alongside them, but not have the same involvement in decision making. That is an important principle that I would have liked to have seen in this Bill. However, we can discuss in more detail, during the clause stand part debate, what leaders boards are for and what they will do. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Daniel Rogerson: I beg to move amendment 109, in clause 68, page 51, line 26, leave out subsection (8).
We are moving into the area of the powers of the Secretary of State. Clause 68(8) states:
If the Secretary of State considers that a Leaders Board established for a region is not operating effectively, the Secretary of State may by direction withdraw approval for the scheme under which it is established.
This is contrary to the view shared by my party in favour of a bottom-up approach. We should be moving forward and creating confidence among people in local areas and regions that their views matter and will be taken seriously. I am also concerned that we are talking about stepping in, where there is a problem, against the leaders board rather than the RDA. The Government may have constituted this as a partnership between the two, but it seems that the Secretary of State envisages a greater likelihood of problems with the leaders board than with the RDA. We might call into question that premise. My party hopes that we can remove this top-down measure, which enshrines in the Bill greater power for the Secretary of State to interfere in these local and regional mechanisms.

Stewart Jackson: Again, I concur with the hon. Gentleman. We will support his amendment. We believe that subsection (8) vests disproportionate power in the hands of the Secretary of State, particularly the power to remove a leaders board from the plan-making process without new primary legislative authority. These powers are open to the possibility of abuseI use that word because it could well happen.
It also seems that accountability is only one way. The question must be asked why the power is not used in respect of RDAs. Why is it used only for leaders boards? It speaks volumes about the disregard and disdain for people at the cutting edge of local government that the Secretary of State can invoke pretty significant powers to disregard the leaders board and not have concomitant powers applying to the RDA.
I am sorry that the Government, when drafting the subsection, did not seek the advice, for instance, of the Royal Town Planning Institute, which made the very reasonable point that it would have been better to establish a mechanism enabling the Secretary of State to identify and direct, where necessary, improvements in service by a leaders board and enabling equivalent action to be taken against the RDA if warranted. The Government have been over-prescriptive and too heavy-handed and, on that basis, we are minded to support the Liberal Democrat amendment.

Rosie Winterton: The aim of the amendment is to remove the power of the Secretary of State to withdraw approval for the leaders board scheme. I want to assure the Committee that it is simply a fall-back power to deal with situations in which the leaders board is unable to function to the satisfaction of the participating authorities. It is important that we have this provision to ensure that if any difficult situations arise, we can ensure that leaders boards function effectively.

Daniel Rogerson: In responding, the Minister was keen to point out that it would be almost a petition from the local areafrom the regionsaying that things were not working well and asking whether the Secretary of State could therefore step in. That is not what the provision says at the moment. It concerns me that something might be set up that is functioning and challenging Government policy on how the region should move forward, but the RDA is unhappy with the challenge it is receiving from the leaders board, and therefore the Secretary of State could step in and say that there was some sort of dysfunction and we needed to go back to the drawing board.
The Ministers response hints at the fact that leaders boards may not be the right model everywhere. In respect of the previous debate, which I shall not seek to reopen, it shows an acknowledgment by the Secretary of State that all might not be perfect with leaders boards. Therefore, it is a shame that it is the only model on offer.
Having said that, the measure is unnecessary and gives too much power, which could be abused, to the Secretary of State. I will therefore press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Stewart Jackson: I shall endeavour not to revisit the debate on subsection (8), which focused on what was probably our primary reason for thinking that the clause is unsatisfactory. However, there are several other reasons as well.
The clause is loosely written, in particular subsection (4) about consultation. It is inappropriate to put in the Bill that the Secretary of State should, in effect, be able to choose whom they wish to be consulted with and by. No doubt the Minister will say that that is normal procedure with Bills, and that it is how they are drafted by people with more expertise than I have, but it cannot be acceptable in a mature democracy that a central personality in, as I said previously, a unitary state, can say that they will choose whom they seek to accept consultation from on an important issue such as a regional strategy. We are not happy about that.
Clearly, we are also unhappy that subsection (8) is in the clause because it is all very well for the regional development agency

Paul Goodman: Perhaps the Minister will provide an explanation of the point, if any, regarding consultation. It is a bit puzzling that such a provision was not inserted in previous clauses that we considered. For example, clause 66 on local authority economic assessments simply requires that the Secretary of State should consult.

Stewart Jackson: As ever, my hon. Friend is forensic and astute. He is absolutely right, and the Minister should address that issue. We need to know why the provision is considered to be appropriate in this clause but not in others.
We also need to look at the concept of leader. The definition of leader is loose, and we can see future legal difficulties in respect of it. For instance, is a leader a directly elected mayor in the south-west region? Is the leader the directly elected mayor of Torbay or is it the Conservative leader of the administration? We have mayoralties across the countryin Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, and Bedford. The issue of who the leader is needs to be considered. Will the leader have a deputy, and will they always be the deputy leader of the district council or the borough council? Moreover, the wording in subsection (10) is very loose and massively open to interpretation. It states:
The application referred to in subsection (9) may be with such modifications as the Secretary of State considers necessary or expedient.
That vests enormous powers in the hands of the Secretary of State in dealing with leaders boards but not with RDAs.
This whole clause fails to rise to the challenge of the sub-national review. We Conservatives took the Government at their word when the sub-national review was announced and enacted. It was about devolving power to localities and giving more say to democratically elected local councillors. This clause is an inadequate response to the consultation that took place at the time. People in district, borough and unitary authorities and other councils did not say, Abolish regional assemblies and let us have this super-regional quango for the great and the good. They said, Lets have real democracy and accountability at a local level. Therefore, this clause fails the test. We believe that it also fails in the context of joint responsibilities for regional policy to address that democratic deficit.
Finally, it is appropriate to mention the British Chambers of Commerce, which makes the point that the architecture being established by this clause within the context of the wider Bill would weaken the sub-regional planning role of local authorities and further undermine their capacity to make decisions in the best interests of their local residents.
Therefore, for all those reasons, we are not minded to support the clause and we will be voting against it.

David Curry: We now come to the central dilemma at the heart of the Governments policy. They believe that there has to be a regional dimensionan aspect of policy that is delivered in a zone below that of the nation. The question is, how do we make that dimension accountable? Ever since the election in the north-east, that question has remained unanswered. A directly elected regional assembly would have been an answer. That went down not just marginally but hugely in the region that was assumed to be the most likely to vote in favour of it. Some people might argue that it was defeated because the powers given to the regional assembly were piddlingabout 6p in the pound in terms of public expenditure. In fact the idea went down for other reasons. It went down because people felt that there was going to be another tier of politicians and they had enough tiers of politicians already. Quite frankly, had the regional assembly been endowed with the riches of Croesus and the wisdom of Solomon, I suspect that it would still have been voted down in the region.

Julia Goldsworthy: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

David Curry: On the Bible or on the regional assembly?

Julia Goldsworthy: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that part of the reason why the assembly was voted down was perhaps that the region did not make sense to the people who were being asked to vote to make it democratically accountable?

David Curry: What matters is that it was defeated. It was defeated so heavily that that corpse will not come back to life.
That was the first outcome. The second way was to make the assembly directly accountable to existing local democratic institutions. Broadly speaking, that is a policy of my party, but the Government believe that it is too diffuse and that one really has to have an alternative and better form of accountability. The trouble is how to devise and deliver it. If there is no regional assemblythat has been removed from the pictureand one does not believe that local authorities have the capacity or the scale to be able to do it, what is left?
We are now on our second or third attempt to find something left. We had the regional assemblies with the nominated members, which have been abolished by the Bill, and now we have the leaders board. We envisage a somewhat curious mixture of a quango and people who are indirectly elected to serve. They are not directly accountable; nobody is going to vote for somebody to be a member of the leaders board. They are going to vote for their councillor who may emerge as the leader or, perhaps, as directly elected mayor, and they will then represent them.
That immediately poses a series of questions, the first regarding the hybrid of the quango and the elected councillors. Secondly, there is the question of representation. I have already mentioned the south-east and the existence of 77 councils, but I have just looked up another three areas. In Yorkshire and Humber, which the Minister and I are most familiar with, there are 22 councils. I suspect that two national parks have to be added to that, so there are 24 elected bodies of one sort or another. In the south-west of England, I make it 41 councils, and there will be national parks to add there as well. In the north-west, we have 41 local authorities and they are quite different in character. Yorkshire and Humber, in population terms, is weighted towards the south and west of Yorkshire, which consists entirely of metropolitan authorities. The district councils are very much exclusively clustered in north Yorkshire. Much more scattered is the south-west, where we have the new unitary councils, but the district councils are much more predominant. In the south-east, of course, there are huge numbers of district councils. The whole of old Lancashire is still divided into district councils.
Even if agreement can be made on who the leaders will be on the boardin Yorkshire and Humber I understand that the agreement is for eight people to sit on ithow do they then report back? It is one thing for the leaders to have a congress of local authority leaders who will choose their representatives to sit on the board, but it is quite another for them to be accountable when they take decisions that might not necessarily be popular. I am afraid that I am repeating myself when I say that housing issues are always the most controversial. People get most excited when they think that housing is being imposed on them. The leaders have got to report back. How will that process of accountability work? How will members be replaced if they do not operate in, to use the Bills words, an effective way? I can see all sorts of difficulty with that very indirect accountability.

Rosie Winterton: Apart from having no regional strategy and no local government presence at all, what alternative is the right hon. Gentleman promoting?

David Curry: There are a variety of alternatives. If a local authority believes that it wishes to maintain an over-arching body, I can see no reason why it should not be allowed to do that. We should let 1,000 flowers bloom; we should not be deterministic in the structures. If we are talking about the sub-regions, I would devolve much more power to the city region. If we are going to have a city region, such as Leeds or Manchester, it is absurd that the regional development agency should not be specific to that area and co-operate with other ones. It is nonsense that it should not have what it needs to succeed. The learning and skills council can be brought under that roof and, frankly, if I were the directly elected mayor of Leeds, I would want my own police authority, because people would ask most questions about law and order. The Government have not thought through the relationship between the sub-regional strategy and the wider regional strategy with which they are persisting. There is obviously a lot of work to do to find structures that will work, but I would very much want to invite local authorities to participate. They would certainly want to work together. They are not going to act in an entirely isolated manner.

Ian Stewart: Some of the right hon. Gentlemans comments resonate with my personal politics, but is he confident that his Front-Bench team will agree with him and implement such a diverse approach?

David Curry: It would be extraordinarily bold of any Back Bencher to assume that his ideas have paramount influence with his Front Bench team, but, if I may say so, I believe that the Tory Front Bench is sensible and flexible, and that the experience of government is a great educator. Given the task that would face any incoming Government, it would be sensible to limit ones order of priorities. I have every confidence that the policies will be sufficiently pragmatic and that the emphasis will be on what is workable. The Minister must not forget that we will be working with predominantly Conservative local government, because even in Cornwall I understand that the Labour party came fifth or sixth behind the Cornish nationalists, which must be quite an achievement, even for that party.
The regional development agencies are the other side of the equation. The truth of the matter is that it is very difficult to say how successful they have been in comparison with an alternative, because we have no control against which to compare them.

Rosie Winterton: We have.

David Curry: No, no. When I was Minister in charge of regeneration, I was always dubious about some of the claims that were made. Characteristically they would be about jobs created; another great claim was about jobs preserved. I always said, How do you demonstrate that the actions of a regional development agency have preserved or conserved jobs? It is somewhat speculative. How do we know? No one has done any modelling to find out whether the money devoted to regional development agencies would better have gone on training, to try to enhance skills, or what would have happened if it had gone into highways infrastructure. What would that have done for the development of the region? We do not have that control, so we should be cautious before making too absolute a claim for the regional development agency.
Therefore, what is being proposed, although it is quite bold, in a sense, is an attempt to square the circle of getting some accountability into a predetermined regional policy. I hope that, in so far as it will come into effect before the next general election, and can show itself to be workable, it can be seen in that perspective. However, I have doubts about it.

Paul Goodman: Are my right hon. Friends doubts increased or decreased by the consideration of money? According to the clause, the only money that the boards will have are sums delegated by the Secretary of State. They will not have any control at all, that I can see, over money.

David Curry: That is certainly a factor, and there are also many questions about how people are chosen, how the bodies will function, and whether the meetings will take place in public. For example, one of the perennial discussions in government is about whether there would be replacements or substitutes, and a lot of that is left to the bodies to decide.

Rosie Winterton: I am not quite clear whether the right hon. Gentleman is agreeing with the point made by his Front-Bench spokesman, which again is not quite clear to me. Is the suggestion being made that the regional development agencies should be allowed to make a levy? Otherwise, I do not understand the point about where the delegated money would come from. If the suggested alternative is a levy, that is interesting.

David Curry: I am not aware of any policy that would endow the regional development agencies with the ability to levy taxation, and I am sure that my hon. Friend did not have that in mind, but if he were to catch my eye I would allow him to clarify it.

Paul Goodman: The Minister has just demonstrated that she was not listening carefully to an earlier part of the debate on the economic assessments, in which we made it clear that, in her own terms, this structure will not work. It is not a properly joined-up regional structure. Were there to be one, we would, of course, not support it, but like the economic assessments, which are completely free-floating and do not feed into the machinery that she describes, these clauses will not even have the effect that she claims.

David Curry: The issue of accountability has not been cracked; that is the top and bottom of it. [Interruption.] No, because Yorkshire and Humber will have eight members of the leaders board, and I think that I just quoted the number of local councils as 22, which is relatively small. It is hugely more in other parts of the world, and that will be a problem.
I permit myself a small speculation about when the first great meeting takes place. I assume that the members of the leaders board will wear sashes, like French mayors, to show that they are members, perhaps with a coat of arms, and there will be a fanfare. I can imagine a suitable fanfare, and I think that, as they march up to the local government office, the town hall, or perhaps the cathedral, choirs will sing the Hallelujah chorus, Thus Spake Zarathustra, Zadok the Priest or the triumphal march from Aida, all of which will be appropriate music as the members of the great local authority leaders board go to assume their great functions. I should be pleased to hear about any other musical interpretations of that moment.
The Minister has simply got to answer the question. [Interruption.] I think we are going to come down in tone.

Rosie Winterton: I want the right hon. Gentleman to have the opportunity to withdraw some sneering remarks about many of his own councillors, who are doing a lot of work to make this structure effective. They feel strongly about this and would feel insulted by his dismissing them as wearing sashes, and all that stuff.

David Curry: When I address the dinner of Conservative councillors at the Local Government Association conference a week tomorrow, no doubt they will tell me about it then, if they have anything to be upset about. But the great virtue of the Conservative councillors is their pragmatism, and they will work with the Government of the day. The Minister is the last Labour Local Government Minister, so they will, for the time being, work with her. When another Minister comes along, they will work with him or her to develop structures that they will, perhaps, feel are more appropriate. I have no doubt that they might still invite me to address their dinners.

Ian Stewart: Mr. Amess, you are aware that my constituency of Eccles is to be abolished. We are abolished, as they say. Nevertheless, it is my job, until the day of the next general election, to represent the interests of my constituents. Therefore, I want to ask the Minister some questions by way of clarification.
My view, within my own personal politics, has always been that decisions should be made at the most local, appropriate level. I am in line with the choice agenda for individuals, but it is clear to every politician of every party that strategic decisions need to be taken. Therefore the most appropriate level needs to be found at which to make strategic decisions as close to our constituents as possible.
I sat on the Local Transport Bill Committee with my right hon. Friend the Minister. That Bill not only took forward transport issues positively, but it developed local democracy and decision making. My questions relate to the impact of the consultation for integrated transport authorities in respect of the clause. I would like to make three points that I hope my right hon. Friend will take on board and perhaps clarify.
First, where two or more local authorities decide to undertake a review of the Governments arrangements for both transport and economic development in an area where there is an existing integrated transport authority, the ITA should also be invited to participate in the review. That is sensible and should be required because the ITA will have the expert knowledge of the transport functions for which it is responsible and which may be transferred to the new combined authority. Secondly, the ITA is an existing sub-regional body and could bring valuable knowledge and contributions on governance arrangements when operating at that level. Thirdly, particularly where the review under the Bill is for an area that encompasses only part of an ITAs area, the ITA will need to advise on and understand the impact of any proposals. My question, therefore, is that where the review area involves all or part of the ITAs integrated transport area, will the ITA be invited to participate in the review?
My second point is designed to seek reassurance that the positive gains made under the Local Transport Act 2008 are not diminished. Where authorities undertake a review with the prospect of creating a combined authorityan authority that combines transport and economic development powers sub-regionallyI want them to take into account any review of transport governance arrangements already completed under the similar review provisions in the 2008 Act. That would be required because a number of ITAs are already undertaking reviews of transport governance arrangements for the sub-region. The findings of those reviews will need to be considered in any review under the Bills provisions. A requirement to have regard to any already completed review should make any further review more efficient. I therefore want to ask whether authorities that undertake a review under this provision will have regard to any relevant review of transport carried out under the provisions of part 5 of the Local Transport Act 2008 relating to all or part of the review area that was completed in the 24 months preceding the commencement of a review under this provision of the Bill.
Finally, will my right hon. Friend confirm whether those authorities that commence a review of the transport and economic development governance arrangements for an area will invite any authorities already undertaking that for the same area, or part of it, to participate in the review? It seems sensible not to have two reviews of the same issue proceeding at the same time. If they are, it would make sense to have joint participation and co-ordination.
Additionally, the Bills review of transport and economic development governance should be informed by work already being undertaken by any transport-only review under the Local Transport Act 2008. Again, for clarification, my question is: where a review under this provision is to be undertaken, and any part of the review area is the subject of an ongoing review under part 5 of the Local Transport Act 2008, will the authorities undertaking the Acts review be invited to participate in the review to be undertaken under the Bill?

Nick Raynsford: This interesting debate has given us an insight into the perspectives of the different parties and, if I may say so, the factions in one of those partieslet me run through them. The Conservative view was probably best expressed by the hon. Member for Wycombe who saidtrenchantly I thoughtWe do not think this will work, but even if we were convinced that it would work, we would still vote against it because we do not like it.

Paul Goodman: Let me put it even more clearly for the right hon. Gentleman: either there must be elected regional assembliesand that is out now

Rosie Winterton: Oh?

Paul Goodman: I repeat that that is out nowfrom everyones point of view. It always was from our point of view, and now it is from the Ministers. Alternatively, there is a bottom-up approach, but we cannot have this dogs breakfast in the middle.

Nick Raynsford: I understand why the hon. Gentleman would like to get away from his earlier formulation, but he will see it when he reads Hansard. It encapsulated the Thatcherite ideological opposition to regionalism. We heard a rather different approach from the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon. It was characteristically thoughtful

Stewart Jackson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Raynsford: Bear with me a moment. I realise that the hon. Gentleman is probably miffed that I did not characterise his perception, but I will give him a full opportunity to present it in a moment. First, I shall give my view of the perception of the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon. He understood the regional dimension and that there are some matters that have to be dealt with at a level below the national level and above the local level, so there has to be a mechanism to allow that. However, he was not convinced that the current proposal would work. I detected in that a traditional Conservative Burkean approach of world-weary pessimism, which was briefly lifted by a sudden ray of light when he had the vision of the massed ranks of dignitaries gathering together in sashes, with assembled choirs singing Hail the Conquering Hero Comes, on his arrival to address the Conservative councillors at their meeting next week.
The Liberal Democrats view, which was more or less shared between the hon. Members for Falmouth and Camborne and for North Cornwall, was that they liked the idea of regional government but not the current blueprint. In particular, they do not like the current regions, and say that until there is consensus between all local authorities as to what constitutes the right regionremember they have just advocated an amendment suggesting that nothing should happen unless there is total consensusnothing will happen, so they are the nothing will happen party.
Against this we have received in the postI hope all members of the Committee have received ita very persuasive letter from the chief executive of 4NW, the embryo leaders board for the north-west region. It says:
I am writing to let you know how 4NW has established itself as a Regional Leaders Board in anticipation of the legislation that is being considered by your Committee
not my Committee, I hasten to add, but your Committee, Mr. Amess. It continues:
Local Government in the North West has come together with senior representatives from business and the third sector to form a genuinely high level Regional Leaders Board.
It includes the leaders of all the metropolitan authorities and county councils in the area, the representatives of the chambers of commerce and major businesses, the voluntary sector, trade unions and some participating observers from other important agencies. That seems an eminently practical way forward, which I commend.

Stewart Jackson: I was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman was not able to speak in last nights debate in the House on business rates because we missed his contribution. His argument does not take account of the very simple fact that the Government seem to have tried everything to meet the objections of my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon regarding true local democracy. It is hard to recognise the north-east of England as the ultra-Thatcherite wing of the British people, but they had this debate in 2004. They discussed the whole idea of regional government and comprehensively rejected it. The Government are now inching towards some kind of compromise, but it will not work.

Nick Raynsford: I was much involved in that saga in the north-east. On another occasion, when there is time, I will give a full account of the reasons for the no vote. It was more complex than either of the views of the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon and the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne. The particular formulation put at that time, and the circumstances of the time, explain why the north-east voted strongly no. It was not a rejection of regional government per se, however, because, as the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon recognises, there are important matters that need to be dealt with at a level between the national and the local. Apart from in London, where there was a decisive yes vote for a city-wide authorityto all intents and purposes a regional authority for Londonthere is no such mechanism in the country.
A search for an appropriate solution is right. As I was illustrating, the response of 4NW in the north-west seems to be an eminently practical and pragmatic approach by the political leaders in that region to make things work. I believe that it deserves our support. I am delighted that they are approaching the matter in such a positive and inclusive way. I commend their approach, and in particular support the Governments persistence in recognising that the issue will not go away and has to be dealt with. We must find practical ways to ensure that those things that have to be decided between the national and local levels are decided through an appropriate framework.

David Amess: Order. Before we continue with our debate on clause 68, I wish to read something into the record concerning the point that the hon. Member for Eccles asked the Minister to respond to. I was not privy to a conversation that the hon. Member for Eccles had with our excellent Clerkthis is a get-out clausebut I was slightly confused when the hon. Gentleman moved from talking about consultations to reviews. The main point that he clearly came on to was entirely to do with clause 71. Quite what the Chair will do about that, I am delighted to say, will be for my co-Chair, Mr. Eric Illsley, to decide about later. I thought that I should put the matter straight. We are debating clause 68 stand part.

Rosie Winterton: Thank you, Mr. Amess. Perhaps I ought to be absolutely clear with my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles, because he raised some very important points about the relationship with transport authorities. With your permission, I suggest that I address the majority of those points a little later when we come to part 6.

David Amess: Order. I think that there was a misunderstanding between the hon. Member for Eccles and the Clerk. The Minister is entirely in order with how she intends to deal with the matter.

Ian Stewart: On a point of order, Mr. Amess. I am sorry to hold the Minister up but, for my information, I take it that I shall not need to speak again later.

David Amess: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right.

Rosie Winterton: I am sure that such a brilliant contribution would be worth hearing twice anyway. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall come back to that.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich that the debate has been interesting. It has shown the clear dividing lines between what we are trying to do as a Government to support economic development at national, regional and local levels, and the attitude of the Conservative party, which seems to be to ignore completely evidence about the need for intervention and strategic planning at the regional level. Conservative Members objections were, frankly, exposed as purely ideological and nothing to do with recognising that it is vital that the measures that we are taking are put into place, especially given the focus on the economic downturn. It was disappointing that the Liberal Democrats could not even make up their minds about what it was that they were trying to do, and just ended up saying, Well, we sort of think that we might quite like this, but actually let us vote with the Conservatives and put an end to the real measures that we are trying to take in this Bill.

David Amess: Order. For clarity, given that there was some confusion on Thursday and we have discovered another printing error, the Committee will definitely sit at Thursday morning at 9 oclock. Hon. Members should also be reassured that they can leave their papers in the room, because the door will be locked. The Committee stands adjourned until 4.30 pm.

The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put (Standing Order No. 88).

Adjourned till this day at half-past Four oclock.